Is There Ever a Time for Civil Disobedience?

[Officers'Wife]

[1] Are you suggesting that the Founders caused the Colonies to break from Great Britain for their personal benefit?

[2] The Revolution was certainly "public."

[3] The Declaration of Independence was made openly and notoriously. The document itself was signed by people using their real names and sent to King George.

Looking at the Empires' POV-The basis of the revolution was against the taxes designed to repay the monies Britain paid to defend the colonies during the French and Indian war. A small percentage did not want to pay their fair share of their own defense.

Only a small percentage of the colonials wanted independence. (Less than 20% if I remember my history courses correctly.) This small band of radicals denied the majority of loyal subjects the relationship with their king and empire for their own mad ideas of self rule.

While these common criminals did commit their crimes against the king and realm famously they were but common criminals and an insult to the established order. Luckily in the 200 years since- most notably in the past forty- the colonies are proving that the masses are unfit to rule themselves and are more comfortable with a nobility. Most notable of this would be the house of Kennedy. God save the King.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...While these common criminals did commit their crimes against the king and realm famously they were but common criminals and an insult to the established order....

And they would have been simple traitors, and punished as such, if they hadn't won.

 

[danprkr]

All it would take to collapse the leviathan state and restore the Republic to its constitutional role would be for 1% of the taxpayers to withdraw their support from the federal government.

I've often wondered the same thing. What would happen if we just quit giving them our money. One of the things I discovered was that there is a reason that most taxes are collected from employees BEFORE they ever see the money in the form of withholding. Specifically so it is A) not missed, and B) not available to be withheld.

Not saying I disagree with you, but with the way laws are set up right now it could be difficult to do in practice.

I also find it interesting that tax day and election day are as far apart on the calendar as they can be. Almost as if they're trying to disconnect taxes from elections in our minds. Just a thought to ponder. I think a law linking the 2 dates would be a great start on getting our freedoms back.

 

[rizbunk77]

yes.

 

[danprkr]

[1] Are you suggesting that the Founders caused the Colonies to break from Great Britain for their personal benefit?

Of course all actions taken are for the actor's personal benefit. Sorry, that's just the way it is. If you give food the hungry it's because you value the feeling of altruism from the act of charity more than you value the food. Enlightened self interest is THE point of our system. By us all acting in our self interest we advance the entire society. That is the idea behind our capitalistic society that created the greatest nation ever known to mankind that is now being destroyed because the majority has figured out it can legally steal from the producers for their gain.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Of course all actions taken are for the actor's personal benefit. ...If you give food the hungry it's because you value the feeling of altruism from the act of charity more than you value the food....

But that's a special and unique form of personal benefit. Your act materially helps another and satisfies you in a non-material manner. Humans (and some other mammals), may take personal risks and endure sacrifice to help others in a material way simply for the personal and non material benefit of the feelings of satisfaction and self esteem it gives them.

Humans are, in general, a charitable species. One of the great travesties of the modern welfare state, IMHO, is that is impinges on the individual's proper charitable impulses. The individual should have the power to decide what portion of his property he wishes to use for helping other, and who he chooses to help. But the government usurps a large portion of the that power by excess taxation and the distribution of much of that money to those who the government decides is worthy. But that's another topic.

 

[DRZinn]

You still haven't explained why it makes any difference whether the act is for personal benefit or for others'. Both are breaking the law because the law is morally wrong.

 

[Frank Ettin]

You still haven't explained why it makes any difference whether the act is for personal benefit or for others'. Both are breaking the law because the law is morally wrong.

I'm not going to get into a silly debate with you about whether a law is morally wrong.

 

[DRZinn]

I'm not asking you to. I'm asking you to explain why, in the face of a law that is morally wrong (choose any example you like), it makes a difference if you break it for your own benefit or someone else's.

 

[AKElroy]

This small band of radicals denied the majority of loyal subjects the relationship with their king and empire for their own mad ideas of self rule.

While these common criminals did commit their crimes against the king and realm famously they were but common criminals and an insult to the established order.

I am assuming these comments were made tounge in cheek; if not, you need to review your history. Signing the Declaration was a defensive act. The tyranny under British rule was intolerable. It was not just about taxes. It was not just about religion. It was about the total occupation of the colonies, in lawless fashion, by a government only interested in plundering at any cost the substance of the colonies. It was about having sons kidnapped & forced at the point of a sword into service in the British navy. It was about mock charges & trials being wielded as tools to imprison falsely any who dared to publically disagree with the king. It was about vital legislation being ignored that was crucial to the ability of the colonies to defend themselves.

The cute story of Paul Revere ringing the bell & announcing that "the British are coming" is only part of the story. The British army was ALREADY HERE. By the thousands. Occupying, stealing, wrongly arresting, raping, beating, plundering, seizing property whenever they found what they liked.

The founders had selfish intent??? NONSENSE. The were rich, they became poor. The had established homesteads, they were burned to the ground. They had sons, they lost them in battle.

In an interesting irony, our independance was also providential to the survival of England. Without it, the British would be speaking German today. As for the French, we frequently joke regarding their lack of fortitude. Without them 220 years ago, we would still be eating roast beef & yorkshire pudding.

Our founders stepped up and did what needed to be done to protect themselves and their neighbors. These were incredibly brave acts that should be revered and exalted; never forgotten. The only reason any of us have the rights we enjoy is due to the bravery of these men. In my view, no nation HAS EVER been created in as admirable fashion as this.

 

[Frank Ettin]

I'm not asking you to. I'm asking you to explain why, in the face of a law that is morally wrong (choose any example you like), it makes a difference if you break it for your own benefit or someone else's.

First, I reject your implied contention that a law requiring a permit to carry a concealed gun is necessarily morally wrong.

Second, it's a value judgment. I find more honor in doing something illegal in order to materially benefit an innocent third party than in doing something illegal to materially benefit yourself. It's one thing to steal a bottle of whiskey so that you can get drunk, and quite another to steal a blanket to keep a sick child warm. They are both crimes of a similar magnitude, involving things worth similar amounts of money; and they both, if discovered, should be punished. But as far as I'm concerned, the second warrants substantially less punishment that the first.

 

[DRZinn]

First, I reject your implied contention that a law requiring a permit to carry a concealed gun is necessarily morally wrong.

As I said, choose any example you like. You think it's OK to require permits, fine. What about when it's technically possible, but only the elite actually get them? What about if there are no permits, and concealed carry is simply illegal? What if open carry is illegal too?

It's one thing to steal a bottle of whiskey so that you can get drunk, and quite another to steal a blanket to keep a sick child warm. They are both crimes of a similar magnitude, involving things worth similar amounts of money; and they both, if discovered, should be punished. But as far as I'm concerned, the second warrants substantially less punishment that the first.

Now you're changing the subject. Theft is an act that is morally wrong. We're talking about something that's not wrong, but illegal.

 

[Frank Ettin]

DRZinn,

And I'm not going to debate morality with you. Have fun.

 

[DRZinn]

You're doing an admirable job of dodging the question. I'm not asking you to debate morality either. I'm asking to to use as an example a law that you believe is morally wrong, and explain to me why you think breaking that law for your own benefit is somehow different than breaking it for someone else's benefit.

 

[ArmedBear]

fiddletown, you did change the subject.

Theft is immoral because there is a victim. It is illegal beacause it's a government role to protect people from being victimized by thieves.

Concealed carry without a permit has no victim. It is illegal because the powers-that-be have decided to make it illegal, and it doesn't protect anyone from anything.

If there is no victim, i.e. no harm comes to anyone else, or even to the actor himself, then there is no deep moral component like there is with theft. Note that all civilizations have bans on theft, whereas laws governing carrying weapons are arbitrary, and the most restrictive laws banning the carrying of weapons tend to be imposed by conquerors (e.g. the English forbidding the Scots to keep or bear arms) or by authoritarian governments.

Apples and oranges.

 

[ArmedBear]

WRT a time for civil disobedience, I'd say that, if there is no victim, there's no moral reason NOT to. If you want to, disobey.

I'd recommend weighing costs and benefits, but I can't say it's wrong, if nobody gets hurt, nobody might get hurt, and no property is damaged.

 

[DRZinn]

I was thinking the same thing. Breaking an immoral law is a an amoral act. If the act is wrong, it's wrong; if it's right, it's right. The law is irrelevant to morality.

 

[SaxonPig]

" Is There Ever a Time for Civil Disobedience? "

I'm free next Friday...

 

[Frank Ettin]

DRZinn and ArmedBear,

You're both missing the point (and, to my chagrin, I allowed myself to get sidetracked). The OP's question was: When, if ever, is civil disobedience appropriate in a question relating to basic Constitutional or human rights? The point is that clandestinely breaking a law is not civil disobedience.

This was fully, in my view, dealt with by Justin in post 4. He pointed out, to quote him yet again

...If you look at examples of civil disobedience, those who chose to undertake them were uniformly willing to step up and publicly state why they believed the laws were unreasonable, and they were willing to break the laws in plain view in order to provoke the state into an overreaction, thereby making their point....

...But if you carry a handgun without a permit, in violation of the laws, you're not doing any of these things. All you're doing is surreptitiously breaking the law. Deluding yourself into believing that you're taking some kind of moral stand by doing so is plainly idiotic, and does nothing to further the cause of the RKBA. In fact, if you ever get busted, you're going to hurt the movement far more than help it.

And the end point of successful civil disobedience is to help what may be perceived as a greater good. It can serve the greater good only by being public and thus forcing an issue. If the battleground is well chosen, and the circumstances right, broad change will result. If the battleground is not well chosen or if the circumstances are not right, the result will be simply some folks going to jail. But that is the risk they consciously took.

The example of the Underground Railroad was brought up. By definition, that was not an example of civil disobedience. It was hidden. But did it nonetheless serve a greater good? Of course it did. It gave the slaves transported the opportunity to live their lives as free people. Did the people who operated the Underground Railroad occupy a moral high ground? In my view they did, because they took great personal risks to help others to materially improve their lives.

But if someone wants to claim that a person unlawfully and secretly carrying a concealed weapon is somehow serving a greater good, I just don't buy it. He obviously finds it personally convenient or desirable to have a weapon on him, but how does that further any societal or community interest? If it's a question of the belief that the law prohibiting carrying the weapon is immoral or constitutional, the secret violation of that law does nothing to change it, or mitigate the perceived evils on a scale larger than the person who is violating it.

I may have some sympathy for the commission of some victimless criminal acts, even with purely selfish motives. But secretly violating such a law isn't a positive good either.

 

[DRZinn]

to my chagrin, I allowed myself to get sidetracked

No, you made the statement, and I asked about it.

But if someone wants to claim that a person unlawfully and secretly carrying a concealed weapon is somehow serving a greater good, I just don't buy it.

I don't think anyone made that claim. I certainly didn't.

But secretly violating such a law isn't a positive good either.

Precisely. It is either right or wrong on its own merits, regardless of legality.

 

[Owen Sparks]

I'm not going to get into a silly debate with you about whether a law is morally wrong.

How about when a law is constitutionally wrong? Like when the constitution says that a specific right "Shall not be infringed" then the government flagerantly infringes upon that right?

 

[ArmedBear]

Civil disobedience can be secret and still a positive good.

The old saying applies: they can't bust everyone. If a law is ignored by enough people, even in secret, that poses a serious challenge to that law.

If one person ignores an unjust law in secret, it can also be a postitive good. Last I checked, Ann Frank wasn't dancing around in the streets with a placard reading, "I help the Jews!"

Our narcissistic, media-driven culture has led to some belief that the only way for someone to have an impact is to get a lot of attention. That's horsecrap.

 

[Walkalong]

I agree entirely with Armed Bear.

Yes, there can be a time for civil disobedience. As a matter of fact, it is our duty as free Americans to do just that when our government passes unjust laws that do not follow our constitution. Our government is supposed to work for us. When they try to run our lives and control us it is our duty to disobey.

Remember: "civil" disobedience.

 

[DRZinn]

If one person ignores an unjust law in secret, it can also be a postitive good. Last I checked, Ann Frank wasn't dancing around in the streets with a placard reading, "I help the Jews!"

But hiding Jews in the attic was good because it saved their lives, not because she was breaking the law.

 

[ArmedBear]

Hiding Jews in the attic was good also because, by doing so, she held onto her OWN humanity in the face of dehumanizing authoritarian oppression.

To recognize the importance of this, one must contemplate how and why the Nazis could succeed, when many people didn't exactly support their policies.